Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024WP(C)/2312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an interim order, allowed a writ petition challenging a commission's directive for promotion holding up solely on a pending union complaint. The Court set aside the order without deciding merits, directing the Commission to reconsider the matter after hearing both sides. The granted relief is thus a stay on the impugned order until further orders following a fresh hearing. The C

What did the court decide?

Impugned order Ext.P6 set aside for reconsideration; parties given one more opportunity to appear before the Commission to enable final decision within two weeks.

The Managing Director Vs Kerala State Commission for… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2312 OF 2024

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶6

M/S. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD., KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695021

¶7

BY ADVS. LATHA ANAND M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B SIDHARTH P.S.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES AYYANKALI BHAVAN, KANAKANAGAR, VELEMBALAM, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695003

¶10

2 SRI. SANTHOSH P.T S/O P.R. THANKAPPAN, PULLAZHATHVEEDU, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686502

¶11

BY ADV P.K.SANTHAMMA, SMT.MARY BENJEMIN, SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 2312 OF 2024

¶14

¶15

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶16

------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.2312 of 2024

¶17

------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2024

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner impugn Ext.P6 order of the 1^st respondent-Commission, whereby, they have been directed to effect promotion to the 2^nd respondent, based on the earlier selection process, in which, he was found to be the most eligible.

¶20

Smt.Latha Anand, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the directions in Ext.P6, that the 2^nd respondent ought to be promoted within 10 days, is untenable because, the 1^st respondent Commission gets no such competence, even under the statutory scheme. She then added that, at the time when Ext.P6 was issued, her client had only informed the

¶21

WP(C) NO. 2312 OF 2024

¶22

¶23

Commission, through their report, that there were certain complaints pending against the promotion process; but that, subsequent thereto, the Bureau of Public Sector Transformation (BPT), made certain recommendations, based on which, the processes are now under review. She asserted that, therefore, Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside.

¶24

Smt.Mary Benjamin, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent-Commission, however, submitted that the afore assertions of Smt.Latha Anand are not tenable because, at the time when the matter was considered by her client, the petitioner had filed a report stating that the promotion to the 2^nd respondent was held up solely on account of the complaint preferred by one of their labour Unions. She argued that this is peremptorily impermissible and that the Commission, therefore, rightly entered a conclusion that the petitioner was acting contrary to the interest of the petitioner, solely because he belongs to a

¶25

¶26

WP(C) NO. 2312 OF 2024

¶27

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community. She asserted that hence Ext.P6 is reprehensible.

¶28

Smt.P.K.Santhamma, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, supported Ext.P6 on the strength of the counter affidavit filed by her client, explaining that, even though he was awarded the highest marks in the interview and the selection process, he has been denied his promotion. She also thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶29

I must say that this Court cannot prima facie, find Ext.P6 to be an error, if the facts are as stated therein. If, as a matter of fact, the 2^nd respondent was found deserving of the highest marks in the selection process, but his promotion has been still held up solely because of the complaint of a Union, it certainly presents a deleterious situation. However, if, as counter asserted by Smt.Latha Anand, the promotion has been held up because of the recommendations of the 'BPT', then it presents a different scenario. But, this aspect

¶30

WP(C) NO. 2312 OF 2024

¶31

¶32

had never been brought to the notice of the 1^st respondentCommission; and am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has a duty to do so.

¶33

To facilitate the aforesaid and to enable the 1^st respondent-Commission to take an appropriate decision, I deem it necessary that the parties be given one more opportunity.

¶34

In the afore circumstances, I allow the writ petition and set aside Ext.P6-but reiterating that I have not found against it on its merits yet; with a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent Commission to give one more opportunity to both sides and then take a final decision as per law, without any avoidable delay.

¶35

For the afore purpose, I direct the parties to appear before the 1^st respondent-Commission at 11.00 a.m. On 02.04.2024. Every endeavour shall be taken by the Commission to issue final orders within a period of two

¶36

WP(C) NO. 2312 OF 2024

¶37

¶38

weeks thereafter.

¶39

It also goes without saying that the Commission will be at full liberty to decide the matter dispassionately and without being trammelled by any other input, including the opinion of this Court as reflected herein, which is on record only as a prima facie one.

¶40

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C) NO. 2312 OF 2024

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2312/2024

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY 2ND RESPON	OF THE DENT BE	COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY ISSUED BY PETITIONER	OF THE THE	NOTICE DATED 18.10.2023 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY SUBMITTED	OF THE BY THE	REPORT DATED 22.11.2023 PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY BY THE TRANSFORMA	OF THE BOARD TION CO	LETTER DATED 27.11.2023 OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR NTAINING THEIR REPORT
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY SENT BY PETITIONER	OF THE THE 1	NOTICE DATED 27.12.2023 ST RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY PASSED BY	OF THE THE 1ST	ORDER DATED 08.12.2023 RESPONDENT

The Managing Director v. Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devika Bipin, Vs the Bank Manager, Union Bank of India

A. Vijayalakshmi Krishna, Vs the State of Kerala

Sree Vidhyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College Vs Kesavendra Kumar IAS

Ajeesh .K Vs M/S. Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd.

Pradeep Kumar. K Vs Varadarajan S.

Binu Viswambharan Vs the Senior Divisional Manager